Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Home Ownership

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage home ownership, in view of the recent increase in mortgage interest rates.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to increase home ownership, in view of rising mortgage rates.

Sir Gilbert Longden: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage home ownership, in view of the recent increase in mortgage interest.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Paul Channon): The best way of encouraging home ownership is to increase still further the number of houses for sale. The measures set out in the White Paper "Widening the Choice: The Next Steps in Housing" will help to ensure an adequate supply of mortgage funds and building land which are essential for a high and stable level of house building.

Mr. Adley: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that the first priority should be to encourage home ownership. What is the latest position on private sector starts, to the latest convenient date? Is he sure that the proposals in the White Paper will produce enough land? Does he feel that the building societies themselves are assisting the

Government's aim of encouraging home ownership, especially for those who have never previously owned their own homes?

Mr. Channon: On the last part of that question, discussions have begun with the building societies and I am sure that they will be carried out helpfully and cooperatively. As for the other parts of the question, I believe that the steps proposed in the White Paper will ensure an adequate supply of building land being available. As for the number of private housing starts, if the rate of the last three months, from December 1972 to February 1973, were projected at an annual rate, we would have over 250,000 private starts this year.

Mr. Crosland: The county elections, of course, are now over. What will the Minister do if, as is still possible, building societies increase their lending rate to 10 per cent. at their next meeting?

Mr. Channon: It is a long-established rule in the House that one does not answer hypothetical questions.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: What steps is the Minister taking to encourage public sector house building? Does he not think that the whole process would be encouraged if he compelled councils to sell their houses to willing buyers?

Mr. Channon: We give every encouragement to local authorities to sell their own houses and I strongly support them in doing so. I hope that the Government will not be driven to taking compulsory steps, because the management of their housing stock is one for local authorities themselves. But I must say that my patience is sorely tried by the activities of some local authorities. As to the question of encouraging the public sector, I had a meeting yesterday with some of the local authority associations to discuss a number of matters. As I have made plain again and again in this House, I am anxious that in areas of housing stress there should be an active public sector house building programme.

Mr. Heffer: Has the Minister considered the establishment of a Government building society in order to pump in money provided by the Government and attract money for the Government, so as to bring down interest rates? What precise plans has he if the rate goes up to


10 per cent. as my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) suggested?

Mr. Channon: I do not think we need assume that it will go up to 10 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman was being uncharacteristically pessimistic. So far, I see no evidence of the need for a Government building society. There seem to be enough building societies already.

Mr. Allason: Has my hon. Friend any ideas on the supply of land for self-build groups? Does he recognise that they, at least, can produce houses without putting a strain on the building industry, which is one of the bottlenecks in the further provision of houses?

Mr. Channon: I am very keen on self-build groups. They provide only a small number of houses at present, but I will consider what my hon. Friend says to see whether there is any way in which they can be further helped. This is really up to the local authorities.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Would not the best way of helping owner-occupiers be to keep down the soaring cost of building land? Would not the most effective way of doing that be by the public acquisition of land at its existing use value, as farmland or waste land, instead of at the enormously inflated market value that it acquires once planning or building permission is given?

Mr. Channon: No, I cannot agree. The hon. Member's proposals would cost the country hundreds, if not thousands, of millions of pounds. They would be wholly impracticable and would fail to achieve their aim. What is essential is that there should be an adequate supply of building land, so that houses can be built on it. If that is done, it will stabilise the price of both houses and land.

Cities (Finance)

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement about Government aid to ease the special financial problems of the great cities.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I have nothing to add to the reply given

by my right hon. and learned Friend to a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) on 6th March.—[Vol. 852. c. 94–6.]

Mr. Kaufman: Is the Minister aware of the anger felt by the people of Manchester at the Government's failure to make an adequate contribution towards paying for services provided by the city of Manchester to hundreds of thousands of people who do not live in the city but use those services and who do not contribute towards their cost? Is he further aware of the anger of the people of Manchester at having to pay an increased rate in order to cover the cost of Government legislation of which they disapprove, such as the Housing Finance Act? When will the Minister take some action to help us, instead of just waffling complacently?

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman appears not to appreciate the purpose of the rate support grant, which is a global figure arranged with the local authorities, in November or thereabouts each year for the following year, so that local authorities may have freedom to decide on what they spend their money and need not ask the taxpayer or ratepayer for more. It is reasonable for the Government to ask them to keep within that estimated expenditure.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in any case, 60 per cent. of local government revenue comes from the central Exchequer, and that if there is any problem, it is surely a problem of the rating system itself, which is illogical, unfair and out of date?

Mr. Page: I would not go so far as that. The contribution from the taxpayer is substantial. It is, after all, worked out by agreement with the local authority associations.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the city of Manchester is in a rather special position? Has he observed that, as a result of the fall in population and the elimination of the rate resources element, it is estimated that Manchester has lost £1·9 million during the period 1972–73? Will he reconsider this problem and give some relief to the burdened ratepayers of the city?

Mr. Page: The problem of Manchester is not unique. We are taking account of the problems of the large cities in considering a new formula on which to distribute the rate support grant, which I hope will shortly be put before the House in new legislation.

Operation Eyesore

Mr. Edward Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to announce a decision about the future of the special environmental assistance scheme Operation Eyesore.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I hope to announce my decision shortly.

Mr. Lyons: Is the Minister aware that I make no apology for raising yet again the urgent need to extend Operation Eyesore beyond 30th June? This is the third time that he has given me this reply. Is he aware that some nervous local authorities have already stopped accepting new Eyesore projects, cutting the scheme from 17 to 14 months? Are not the work forces engaged on Eyesore projects in local authorities entitled to know now what the future holds for them?

Mr. Rippon: I appreciate the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. It has been a very popular and worthwhile scheme, but it was announced as a short-term measure and it must be regarded in that light at present.

Mr. Gower: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remember, in consultations with his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland, that this scheme has been of particular value to those parts of the country which were disfigured by the Industrial Revolution of the past and whose environment has suffered disfigurement through the operations of our older industries?

Mr. Rippon: That is certainly true. I am sure that it has been a very valuable scheme and has served the purpose for which it was introduced.

Mr. Sheldon: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of Early Day

Motion No. 267, in my name and the names of a number of hon. Members representing constituencies in the North West, from both sides of the House, regarding the need to continue this scheme for a further 12 months?
As this feeling is so widespread, will the Minister give a very sympathetic answer at an early date?

Mr. Rippon: I shall certainly bear in mind the views expressed.

Improvement Grants

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his proposals for dealing with those property developers making substantial profits from house improvement grants.

Mr. Stallard: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the report of the Committee on Housing Improvement Grants.

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the report of the Committee on Housing Improvement Grants.

Mr. Channon: My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet completed his comprehensive review of policy on older housing, which includes improvement grant policy. A statement will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Minister agree that a problem exists here and that there is a scandal which needs to be dealt with? In so far as there is the scandal of profiteering and speculation, nothing, or very little, is being done to solve the housing problem for which the housing improvement grant scheme was instigated. In view of that, will the Minister take urgent steps to deal with this matter as expeditiously as he can?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman slightly exaggerates the position. I think it would be common ground throughout the House that the improvement grant scheme has been a major step forward in improving our older and obsolescent housing, and the ghastly conditions of many tens of thousands, if not hundreds


of thousands, of people who have to live in appalling housing conditions.
I agree that there is a problem, but the hon. Gentleman exaggerates its importance.

Sir G. Nabarro: On the subject of scandals, is not the real scandal in this context the fact that housing grants are limited to only £1,000 and that from the point of view of the Government it would be a far better investment if the limit were at least doubled, in order to induce an even greater number of people to improve their house properties, thereby increasing rateable values and lessening the burden on the central taxpayer?

Mr. Channon: I note my hon. Friend's view. Very few improvement grants come anywhere near the present £1,000 limit.

Mr. Stallard: Is the Minister aware that his reply will disappoint thousands of people throughout the country and, more particularly, those in areas such as mine, in inner London? Does he really understand the racket that is going on in conversion and improvement grants in inner London? Does he know about the squatting problem, and the difficulties of squatters? Did he read in the Press this morning about the eruption of violence in my constituency arising out of this problem? Does he know about the problems of evictions, and of youngsters seeking a home in Camden Town, where a one-bedroomed flat costs £12,750? Does he know about the problems of teachers and other workers who are searching for the last few furnished tenancies which are available in inner London? Does not the Minister appreciate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is quite a good go.

Mr. Stallard: Will the Minister consider—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister already has enough for consideration on his plate.

Mr. Channon: I am well aware of the problems that exist in the stress areas of our big cities, and, in particular, in inner London—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening to the answer, as he put

such a long question, he will have noted that the White Paper just published promised that the Government's proposals will be brought forward following a review of the policy on older housing.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If improvement grants were included in assessing liability for income tax, those who need it most would receive it at practically no deduction and those who need it least would pay a heavy rate of tax on what they receive, would they not?

Mr. Channon: I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's very interesting views.

Mr. Cox: Returning to the Minister's reply, is not he fully aware that we are opposed not to housing improvement grants when they are being properly used but to the callous indifference shown by property speculators to the people living in those properties in trying to get them out by any means that they can and thus make substantial profits? Already throughout London, in spite of the inquiry that is taking place, properties are being bought up and left to remain empty for weeks and weeks at a time. There are 100,000 empty properties in London. When will the Minister do something about it?

Mr. Channon: I had a meeting with the hon. Gentleman's borough on this very topic yesterday. We discussed the problem of empty houses. I made it perfectly clear that I hoped local authorities would make the best use of their own properties and that in cases where private people were blatantly leaving their properties empty for long periods my right hon. Friend would be prepared to consider a compulsory purchase order.
I must point out, however, that if there is this great scandal about improvement grants in inner London it is the boroughs themselves which make the improvement grants.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: In view of what my hon. Friend has said, will he encourage local authorities in areas where there is acute housing shortage to purchase such premises and make use of improvement grants to provide extra housing much more quickly than would otherwise be done?

Mr. Channon: As always, my hon. Friend has made a most helpful and useful suggestion.

Mr. Freeson: Why does the Minister have to wait until he has completed this review, for which we have been waiting so long? Does not he agree that at least two points can now be clearly accepted by all of us? On the one hand, there is abuse in certain areas in London, and possibly elsewhere in the country, to which my hon. Friends have been referring, and, on the other, large areas of landlord-owned twilight property are not being tackled. Does the Minister agree that that is so? If he does, in order to tackle both problems will he accept the recommendation of the Layfield Report and the policy which has been advocated by the London Labour Party, of a massive takeover of these properties by municipalities, in order to get the job done?

Mr. Channon: I should be much more inclined to accept the Layfield Report than the advice of the London Labour Party. The wholesale policy of municipalisation suggested by the Labour Party would not add one house to the housing stock. What the White Paper promised was that we would bring forward proposals for housing stress areas following the review of older housing policy. If the Opposition will promise us the time to complete it by the end of the summer, that will be a great help.

Roads (Portsmouth)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what communications he has received concerning the construction of a strategic lorry park, the construction of a related link road and the widening of existing roads in North Portsmouth; what replies he has sent; and whether he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I have received from the hon. Member a petition from local residents. On the siting of a lorry park, I cannot usefully add to my right hon. Friend's reply given to a similar Question from the hon. Member on 7th February 1973.

Mr. Judd: Will the Under-Secretary take an early opportunity to come with

me to see for himself the rape of the living communities of Portsmouth by the totally unnecessary and disruptive road building? In keeping with the Report of the Public Expenditure Committee on Urban Transport, will he urge the city council of Portsmouth fundamentally to think again about its road building programme and to improve its public transport system with park-and-ride schemes?
Further, will the Under-Secretary now tell his special working party on strategic lorry parks that, unless the Ministry of Defence can make the firing range at Tipnor available, there can be no strategic lorry park on the already overcrowded Portsea Island?

Mr. Speed: The last part of the question is a matter for my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. As to the first part, at this stage it is for the Portsmouth City Council to proceed. I have today written a very full letter to the hon. Gentleman explaining the position. I do not think that it is my job to tell the city council what it should or should not do about its own road schemes.

Council Houses (Sale)

Mr. Lamborn: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he sets before allowing local authorities to sell council houses at 30 per cent. below market value.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I am prepared to authorise sales at up to 30 per cent. below unrestricted market value in cases where the local authority can show that there have been substantial rises in the market value of their houses. Sales on this basis have to be accompanied by resale conditions for a period of eight years and costs have to be covered.

Mr. Lamborn: Is the Under-Secretary aware that one of the criteria on which the Greater London Council approached the Minister's Department to have the percentage reduction increased to 30 per cent. was the difficulty of selling housing on certain estates? In view of the stress conditions of inner London, is it not scandalous that the pool of housing which produces 12,000 vacancies a year to deal


with the problems of the area is being dissipated in this way?

Mr. Eyre: No. The hon. Gentleman should take account of the varying aspirations of people in housing matters. Local authorities should be prepared to sell to tenants who want to buy and are able to do so, and should at the same time build or otherwise provide accommodation to meet the needs of those needing houses to let.

Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend prepared to apply the same criteria in the case of new towns, where there may equally well be conditions in which a 30 per cent. discount would be highly suitable?

Mr. Eyre: The circumstances in new towns are rather different, and the requirement that houses should not be sold below cost does not allow much scope in the respect that my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. Crosland: There is a blockage here. Does not the Under-Secretary agree that we are very concerned, not only with the total housing condition but with the supply of rented accommodation? Is he aware that the supply of private rented accommodation is continually declining and that both starts and completions of public rented accommodation are lower than they have been for 10 years? In those circumstances, not only to allow but, indeed, to encourage the sale of badly needed rented property is a disastrous policy.

Mr. Eyre: The difference I have with the right hon. Gentleman in this respect is that the tenant who wishes to buy is not normally prepared to live elsewhere. It therefore follows that one meets his aspirations by allowing him to acquire the family asset—the house he lives in.

Car Seat Belts (Children)

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the adequacy and effectiveness of existing controls on the safety of car seat belts that are sold and fitted expressly for use by children.

Mr. Wiggin: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to make the public aware of the legal requirement only to install in cars children's seats and belts that are of a

design and standard approved by the British Standards Institute.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): I am satisfied that child seat belts approved to the British Standard are effective and that the law is right in permitting only such belts to be installed for safety purposes in cars. I am considering how best to supplement recent publicity about the sale and use of belts not so approved.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a matter of the utmost gravity, in which many traders are unwittingly in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act by attributing safety properties to these harnesses which they do not have, and that parents are lulled into what turns out to be a false sense of security about their children by using belts which are not adequately fitted, as has been proved in recent tragic accidents? Will my right hon. Friend please reconsider this question very urgently, as a matter concerning the health and safety of thousands of children?

Mr. Peyton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter, and hope that further publicity will result from what she has just said. The difficulty is that we are dealing with two kinds of appliance—one to restrain the child, to keep it from moving about in the car, and the other to protect it. The standards applied to the latter are those which are intended for the purposes of safety, and those which have a British Standard are safe and reliable. The other ones are the traps, when it is represented by retailers that they fulfil a purpose for which they were not made.

Mr. Sandelson: Does the Minister see any sense in the extremely expensive campaign which has been mounted to encourage people to use safety belts, while, as the same time, an additional tax is imposed on their purchase? I refer to value added tax.

Mr. Peyton: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is one for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Wiggin: Is it not an absurd state of affairs that it is legal to sell harnesses and children's seats which, once fitted in a car, break the law? Will my right hon.


Friend have consultations with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs to see whether the sale of non-standard belts and seats can be prohibited? Will he give publicity to the regulation about the illegality of fitting non-standard seats and belts?

Mr. Peyton: I shall certainly consider the point my hon. Friend has made. It would be difficult to take overall action to restrain people from employing useful devices which simply keep a child anchored in a car. It is important that parents should be aware when buying these seats that only a limited number— and those are particularly the ones that conform to British Standards—are designed for safety purposes.

Rate Rebate Scheme

Mr. Horam: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the working of the rate rebate scheme.

Mr. Graham Page: Various representations have been received about the rate rebate scheme, including proposals that its terms should be aligned with those of the scheme of rent rebates and allowances, and that assistance should be available higher up the income scale.

Mr. Horam: Is the Minister aware that in one inner London borough where the housing association of which I am chairman operates the district valuer has recently fixed rateable values at such a level that the rate payable is more than £4 a week on a large flat and more than £3 a week on a smaller flat—[Interruption.] It is indeed Camden. At that level of rates, does not the Minister realise that the rate rebate scheme is meaningless, even for families with below-average incomes? How does he expect ordinary families to pay that amount of rate? Does it not make a mockery of all the effort now being put into helping low-paid families to continue living in central London?

Mr. Page: I appreciate the various representations which have been made about the rate rebate scheme, including proposals that its terms should be aligned with those of the scheme of rent rebates and that assistance should be available higher up the income scale. We are considering

these matters, with a view to legislation shortly being brought before the House.

London Motorways

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further representations he has received concerning the inner ringway and radial motorways proposed by the Layfield Committee and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rippon: I have received various representations from members of the public and interested bodies. There will be a formal opportunity to make representations about my proposed modifications to the Greater London Development Plan when I publish them in draft.

Mr. Davis: Has the Minister included in the representations he has received the most forceful possible representations from the electors in Greater London last Thursday? Are not the schemes now finally dead and buried?

Mr. Rippon: Various representations are made in various ways. No doubt the new Greater London Council's majority will have views to express in due time. At this stage I can act only in a formal capacity in regard to these matters.

Mr. Wilkinson: Has my right hon. and learned Friend read the comment of the new Leader of the GLC about new motorway construction in London? Has he noted the effect that that will have upon access to the proposed new third London airport at Maplin Sands, which, apart from the high speed link, will be very dependent on road communications?

Mr. Rippon: In regard to all these matters it would be wise to give the new majority party on the GLC an opportunity to consider its position. It will have to take matters rather further than its election statements.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us an assurance that there will be no question of the Government's trying to browbeat the new GLC into accepting Ringway 1 when it has declared itself completely against it?

Mr. Rippon: In my original statement I said that phasing and timing are matters for the GLC.

Mr. Jay: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, in view of past reports by the Council on Tribunals, including that on London Airport plans in February 1968, what further public inquiry he now proposes to hold into the revised plans for London motorways put forward by the GLC and the Layfield Panel.

Mr. Rippon: Any modifications which I propose to make to the original motorway proposals in the Greater London Development Plan will be published in draft and an opportunity given for public comment. There will be a further inquiry or inquiries only if objections to the proposed modifications raise issues not already considered by the Layfield Panel.

Mr. Jay: As these proposals have been plainly and drastically modified and the inner ringways abandoned, will the Minister assure us that any proposals for radial motorways to be brought into London will be the subject of an overall public inquiry in each case?

Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Gentleman has shown that he is hopelessly muddled about the legal position—which I have tried to explain to him in this House and in letters—just as he was hopelessly muddled in his question about the relevance of the Stansted inquiry. I shall do my best to write him another letter to try to explain the situation, but it seems a pretty hopeless task.

Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. and learned Friend now be willing to reconsider the possibility of constructing Ringway 3—the outer London ringway?

Mr. Rippon: I cannot at this stage add to the statement I made when the report was published. I shall make further statements in due course about the whole or part of the proposals.

St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington

Sir G. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the report of the inspector who, in July 1972, held a public inquiry about St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington, and the proposal to fill in most of the three acres of water in the Paddington Basin.

Mr. Channon: The inspector's report is being considered. I cannot yet say when a decision will be reached and the findings published.

Sir G. de Freitas: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this is a matter of national and not merely local concern? Will he confirm that the Government stand by the statement made last August supporting the development of urban canals as a public amenity?

Mr. Channon: I accept that it is an extremely important matter, about which there has been a public inquiry. The matter has far-reaching effects, which is why it is taking a long time for the public inquiry to come to a conclusion.

Ordnance Survey Maps

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision concerning the future production of the 2·-in.-to-the-mile Ordnance Survey maps.

Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. and learned Friend expects to be able to announce a decision on completion of his conferences on this matter.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reports that there is a possibility that the production of 2·-in. maps will be discontinued have caused considerable concern among ramblers' organisations and others who make great use of these maps? Will he undertake to consider very carefully all the representations made to him, and not necessarily to make his decision on purely commercial grounds?

Mr. Page: Yes, indeed. All representations will be taken into account. The review is being undertaken to discover what use is made by Government Departments, statutory undertakers and local authorities. We are faced with the fact that 2,015 sheets of the 2·-in. maps are produced and of only two-thirds of these are more than 200 copies sold.

Mr. Waddington: May I reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell)? If sheets covering certain parts of the country were no longer published, would not there be a danger of footpaths in those parts being used less and less and eventually disappearing from local


knowledge? That would be a great tragedy.

Mr. Page: I appreciate that. The question is whether we should reproduce all the 2,015 sheets or whether there is a demand for a part of them which can be commercially viable.

Mr. Oakes: The Minister says that he is considering Government Departments' and local authorities' reactions. Will he bear in mind the public need for the maps, and their growing use by the public, as well as the needs of Government Departments and local authorities?

Mr. Page: Yes, Sir. I am considering that need as well. I wanted to be quite frank, and to say that the review was to ascertain the demand from Government Departments—a demand that we would subsidise. In addition, we are taking account of representations from schools, ramblers' associations, and so on.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a big gap between the 1-in. and the 6-in. maps, that the 2·-in. series has only fairly recently been coming out in a folder form, which is convenient to people to buy and use, and that it will not really have had a fair trial on the market until it has has covered a substantial area of the country?

Mr. Page: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend is right. That is the sort of thing we want to review. The commercial demand does not exist at present. Whether that is because the demand has not built up properly, I do not know. That is what we shall find out from the review.

Railway Network (White Paper)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will now publish his White Paper on the future of the railway system.

Mr. Peyton: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on 14th February—[Vol. 850, c. 343.]

Mr. Huckfield: Is not the Minister aware that, with a management reorganisation only half completed, with the advanced passenger train perhaps two

years behind, and with the Railway Board's willingness completely to shuffle off commuter railway services to the new metropolitan counties, thousands of railwaymen and millions of railway passengers need some certainty injected into their lives? When will the Minister do that?

Mr. Peyton: I do not accept the multitude of premises with which the hon. Gentleman preceded his question, but I entirely appreciate the need for clarification. The problem is complicated and difficult. A statement will be made to Parliament as soon as possible.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Will the White Paper include information about expanding the electrification of railways, bearing in mind the likely shortages of diesel fuel over the next 15 years? Will it include the need for higher-speed inter-city services, such as I have seen in Japan in the past few weeks?

Mr. Peyton: I should not like to anticipate the contents of the paper, whether white or green, but it will, of course, be comprehensive.

Mr. Mulley: Can the Minister give us no indication of the likely date of publication? The matter is one of great public concern and causes anxiety, which was unfortunately fostered by leaks from his Department. There is great public concern about the future of the railways. The matter affects the planning of roads and all manner of things. Will publication be before Whitsun? Will not the Minister at least commit himself roughly to a date when the great public interest in the subject can at least begin to focus on positive proposals?

Mr. Peyton: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety. I should not like to give a firm commitment, but I hope that publication will be before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Bagier: Does the Minister agree that great concern was caused by the somewhat premature disclosure of a document which came to his Department about the possible future size of the railway network? Does he appreciate that in the absence of a White Paper giving some idea of the future size there is great concern about lines such as that between


Sunderland and Middlesbrough and various others which it was suggested could be closed?

Mr. Peyton: I have said time without number that the document which leaked, and which was accompanied in its subsequent publication by a wholly unauthorised map, had no official foundation whatever.

Theatres (Preservation)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made to him about the future of London and provincial theatres, in view of the threat of demolition; and what action he proposes to take thereon.

Mr. Channon: My right hon. and learned Friend met a deputation from the Theatres Advisory Council on 23rd February. A number of London theatres were added to the list of protected buildings last year, and my right hon. and learned Friend has agreed to consider the points the deputation put to him.

Mrs. Short: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will the Minister bear in mind that every theatre closure means fewer opportunities for work for actors and theatre staff, and that we are in a crucial situation? Is he aware that the Shaftesbury Theatre is the latest to appear to be under threat, and that the company there is under notice for closure in September? Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will work closely with local authorities, especially the new GLC, which is equally concerned about the preservation of theatres in London?

Mr. Channon: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Lady says. My right hon. and learned Friend is always prepared to work closely with local authorities on this and many other matters. I agree with the hon. Lady about the great importance, not only to actors but to us all, of having a good number of live theatres in London.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: For every 10 theatres that have been knocked down since the war, only one has been rebuilt. Will my hon. Friend ensure that a Conservative Government give every support

to a local council when it wishes to build a new theatre for its community centre?

Mr. Channon: I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says, which is true, but does not, luckily, apply to Greater London, where I think there are no fewer theatres now than there were at the end of the last war. Of the 57 theatres in the Greater London area 33 are listed, 19 of them as recently as in the last 12 months.

Mr. Strauss: I agree that a number of these theatres are listed but that is not a complete protection against demolition. When requests are made for their demolition, will the Minister bear in mind that most London theatres are outstanding examples of Victorian and Edwardian architecture and for the most part have an irreplaceable atmosphere of warmth and welcome? Will the Minister turn his back on any suggestion that they should be replaced by the building of some cold, modern theatre auditorium in a new office block?

Mr. Channon: The whole House has the greatest sympathy with what the right hon. Member says.

Rent Assessment Appeals

Mr. Ronald Bell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals to rent assessment panels against the determinations of rent officers are at present awaiting decision.

Mr. Eyre: About 3,450 in England and Wales, inclusive of appeals in respect of applications for certificates of fair rent.

Mr. Bell: If rent officers generally take the view of the Thames Valley rent officer in the case of which I have sent my hon. Friend particulars, the appellants are wasting their time. If success on appeal against applications made before 6th November last and ordered by the panel to take effect from the date of application, as in due course of law they would be. are nevertheless set aside by the rent officer in view of the counter-inflation legislation, what is the point in these people appealing?

Mr. Eyre: My hon. and learned Friend may be aware that the limitation and standstill applied only until 29th April this year. He referred to the position of


the Thames Valley panel. I understand that 115 cases are outstanding, of which 95 were lodged by or on behalf of tenants of a housing association on 7th March and that another nine were lodged on several dates between 16th and 21st March.

Out-of-Town Shopping Centres (Yorkshire and Humberside)

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications he has received for out-of-town shops and shopping centres in Yorkshire and Humberside; and how many he has allowed.

Mr. Graham Page: I have been informed about three applications under the terms of Circular 17/72 for out-of-town shops or shopping centres in Yorkshire and Humberside. None has yet been allowed.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that Labour swept the board at last Thursday's elections in South Yorkshire and that one of its planks was a balanced shopping development that would provide for all housewives, and especially the old and those without cars, and would generally have regard to all social factors? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the new South Yorkshire Metropolitan County that in spite of Chandler's Ford it can undertake sound structure planning?

Mr. Page: If the Labour Party swept the board on that policy it stole Conservative clothes, because this is a principle which we have applied in any application for out-of-town shopping—that it should not affect the High Street to the extent of destroying it. We treat each application on its merits.

Mr. Fry: Out-of-town shopping centres are becoming more and more acceptable in this country, but are steps always taken to approach the developers of such sites for a contribution towards the improved roads which are often needed if the development is to be successful?

Mr. Page: That is just the subject which is included in the White Paper on land availability.

Westminster (Redevelopment)

Mr. Freeson: asked the Secretary of Slate for the Environment what his plans

are for the Broad Sanctuary site near Westminster Abbey and Central Hall: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Channon: I am still considering the future use of this important site. I will make a statement as soon as a satisfactory scheme has been agreed.

Mr. Freeson: We have been getting answers on this topic occasionally over 25 years. I hope that the Minister will agree that that is far too long a time. It was proposed after the war that the site should be used for Government offices, and in the 1950s a conference centre was suggested which was the subject of an architectural competition sponsored by the Department. Yet today it still remains an eyesore in the centre of London when it could become an amenity. Rather than wait for another 25 years, would it not be wise for the present car park to be decked over and turned into a public open space, thus providing an amenity in central London?

Mr. Channon: The second part of the question raises an interesting possibility. However, neither side of the House can take much credit for what has been done in Broad Sanctuary for the last 25 years. But I have to bear in mind what the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said in a previous supplementary question.

Mr. Marten: What are the three major schemes which are being considered by the Minister?

Mr. Channon: I do not think that I said that three major schemes were being considered. A number of schemes are being considered. I would not limit them to three. If my hon. Friend will put down a Question I will give him the details.

Mr. Bidwell: Would it not be a good idea to keep Broad Sanctuary as a Member's car park and to hire out the parking space in the car park being built close to the House, because medical opinion has it that since MPs have had to undertake that little walk they are likely to live a great deal longer?

Mr. Channon: Certainly the hon Member is looking extremely well. I shall naturally consider that suggestion with the seriousness it merits.

Lead Recovery Plant (Swinton)

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will call in on environmental grounds the application for the siting of a lead recovery plant at Clifton Junction, Swinton; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rippon: The planning application is for the replacement of plant in an existing factory within an industrial area. It is for the local planning authority to decide. The advice of my Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate is available to it. There is no reason for me to intervene in the planning application.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is great concern amongst the people of Prestwich and Whitefield about this development on their doorstep? Is he satisfied that the present statutory limits on lead emission leave a sufficient margin of safety? Will he assure the House that this new plant will not constitute a danger to public health?

Mr. Rippon: It is now a matter for the local planning authority to weigh all the considerations involved and to decide whether or not to refuse planning permission. It would not be right for me, this afternoon, to go into the merits of a particular proposal.

Railway Land

Sir H. Harrison: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of land were sold by British Rail in 1972; and how this compares with 1970 and 1971.

Mr. Peyton: 7,165 acres, compared with 6,118 in 1971 and 6,600 in 1970.

Sir H. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with this very small increase, and that where some of our railway lines are being closed enough of the available land is turned over for housing or industrial purposes, so that it can be put to a full and proper use?

Mr. Peyton: I do not think one is ever satisfied, but I think that the railways take every reasonable step to get rid of land for which there is no likelihood of any railway use.

Mr. Heffer: In view of the great problem of land in the conurbations, will the right hon. Gentleman have further conversations with the British Railways Board urging that the land available in great conurbations, such as Liverpool, should be given priority for housing, which is our greatest need?

Mr. Peyton: It is the policy of nationalised industries and the Government that the nationalised industries should first offer their land to local authorities. The need for land for housing purposes is completely understood.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend say what proportion of the latest figure is railway land in the assisted areas, because in undertaking industrial projects those areas which benefit from the Industry Act are often impeded by the lack of suitable land for development?

Mr. Peyton: No, not without notice.

Mr. Kaufman: Will the Minister approach British Rail on the question of derelict railway land at Broome Lane, Manchester, asking the board to tidy it up and to turn it into a children's playground or amenity, or sell it to somebody who would do the job for British Rail?

Mr. Peyton: I have no doubt that the Chairman of British Rail will take due note of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Holiday Caravans

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to prevent the eviction of caravan owners from holiday sites because they refuse to buy new caravans from the site owners.

Mr. Eyre: I do not think such legislation is the appropriate way to deal with the alleged abuse.

Mr. Ashton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that planning permission for caravan sites is now almost at saturation point and that this situation puts owners in a monopoly position? Is he further aware that many caravan site owners are also caravan manufacturers, and that three years after somebody has bought a caravan on the site the owners threaten


to evict ordinary people, including pensioners who have invested their savings, if they will not buy a new caravan.

Mr. Eyre: The question of the adequacy of sites is a matter for local planning authorities. On the other point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I remind him that if Parliament approves the Fair Trading Bill this kind of practice could be drawn to the attention of the Director of Fair Trading.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister concede that it is reasonable that many people should feel anxious about this matter and are entitled to receive some reassurance, since the sort of practice outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has been widespread, for example, on many parts of the East Coast? Has the hon. Gentleman received any correspondence from people who are anxious about this matter?

Mr. Eyre: Administratively, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State in another place is primarily responsible for this matter, but I have carefully noted the hon. Gentleman's assertion about the number of cases which have come to his notice.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the Minister aware that some months ago I drew his Department's attention to the extortionate rents that were being demanded from those who had placed their caravans or chalets on these sites? His Department replied that it considered this not to be a fitting subject for legislation. Since these increased rents were imposed in the very week that preceded the standstill, and since they are still continuing, it is not time that legislation was brought forward to protect these people?

Mr. Eyre: The matter of increased charges on holiday caravan sites is one for the Department of Trade and Industry, and is another question.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that caravans situated on permanent sites represent the one area of home ownership that is without any protection or security? Is he further aware that there is growing evidence of action by site owners to deprive people of security and to impose intolerable conditions upon occupiers, on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member

for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)? Does he know that certain owners refuse to allow co-operative societies on to the sites to serve goods? Will the Minister undertake to set up an inquiry into the situation, since the Opposition will be glad to co-operate to see what can be done to protect the interests of occupants on permanent caravan sites?

Mr. Eyre: I have carefully noted what the hon. Gentleman said. The original Question relates to holiday caravan sites. The difficulty in that respect is due to the transient nature of occupation of holiday caravans. With regard to permanent sites, there is some protection for the occupier under the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, since a court order is necessary before eviction can take place.

Accommodation Agencies

Mr. Cordle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions were brought in 1972 under Section 1 of the Accommodation Agencies Act 1953.

Mr. Eyre: Figures for prosecutions in 1972 are not yet available.

Mr. Cordle: Is my hon. Friend aware that many agencies in London charge one or two weeks' rent illegally by way of commission? Does he realise that most tenants are students and young people who pay without demur? Will he consider increasing the number of prosecutions in this respect?

Mr. Eyre: Prosecutions in 1970 numbered four, and in 1971 they rose to 39. But it is evident that properly conducted accommodation agencies meet a real need on behalf of potential tenants. They can save people a great deal of time and trouble in their search for premises. The courts have not found it difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal fees.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I can show him columns of newspaper advertisements in which advertisers are breaking the law by offering rented accommodation to tenants on condition that they pay commission of some kind?

Mr. Eyre: I shall be interested to study carefully any specific matter the hon. Gentleman wishes to send to me, but the Act prohibits only certain actions by the


agent. There is a wide field of useful activity which an agent can follow and provide a service which merits a fee.

Mr. Freeson: Is the Minister aware that this is an area of growing concern in the big cities, particularly in inner London, and that the problem is not confined to abuse by agencies, in terms of students and other single people? One of the largest groups of people affected by the situation is the unsupported mother—the single-parent family. Will he consider amending the Act to establish a licensing procedure to make sure that only properly-run accommodation agencies are allowed to operate?

Mr. Eyre: I am prepared to consider any detailed proposal that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make, but as at present advised I understand that the form of the law is not unsatisfactory in this very difficult matter. Furthermore, I would point out that private individuals as well as the police can prosecute.

Driving Licences (EEC Directive)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the EEC draft directive which proposes to raise the age for a driving licence from 17 to 18 years; and what view he has expressed to the Commission about it.

Mr. Peyton: I have considerable sympathy with the reservations which have been expressed in this country since the publication of the draft directive. I intend to express these in Brussels at the appropriate time.

Mr. Marten: I am glad to hear my right hon. Friend's reply. Will he make it absolutely clear that this Parliament— this sovereign Parliament—will not tolerate this fussy interference in our way of life? The raising of the driving age from 17 to 18 years is not a negotiable matter, and that is that.

Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has his own way of making his views clear, and does not need me to comment upon them.

Mr. Mulley: Will the Minister ensure that the English texts of this draft directive are made available? Is he aware that, while there are grave objections to this

particular proposal, there are many other proposals in the so-called draft directive to which one can also take objection, and that probably the only thing one can commend is the suggestion that we should lower the age for driving motor cycles, back to the age which obtained before the Minister changed the situation a year ago?

Mr. Peyton: I have already said that I have considerable reservations, or that I share the reservations which have been expressed in this country, on this directive. I am not quite sure whether my powers extend to the immediate provision of a copy in English of the draft directive, but I shall look into the situation.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while that particular topic is being discussed, the question of lowering the age at which people may drive a bus from 21 to 18, to make sure that we have some bus drivers in London, should also be discussed?

Mr. Peyton: That is an exceedingly interesting proposition, but it does not arise out of this Question.

Travel Concessions Act 1964

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the operation of the Travel Concessions Act 1964.

Mr. Peyton: Very few, Sir.

Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it must appear unreasonable to the elderly, the disabled and the blind that some areas have adequate schemes for concessionary travel while others have none at all and still others have very bad schemes? Is it not desirable for the Minister to have powers to collect information from local authorities about the schemes which they provide, so that he may issue guidance to local authorities where inadequate or no schemes are in operation?

Mr. Peyton: I am under very little pressure from local authorities to produce a uniform policy stretching over the whole country. In regard to my powers to collect information from local authorities, I may have many complaints, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that


that is not one of them. I can always collect the information I want.

Mr. English: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that when we last had a uniform policy it was his party's policy, in a former Government, to forbid all concessions.

Mr. Peyton: I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Gaming (Amendment) Act, 1973.
2. Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act, 1973.
3. Cost in Criminal Cases Act, 1973.
4. Administration of Justice Act, 1973.
5. Education Act, 1973.
6. Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1973.
7. Humber Bridge Act, 1973.
8. Derby Friar Gate Chapel Act, 1973.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Edward Short: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for the week following the recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir.
The business for the first week after the Adjournment will be as follows: —
MONDAY 30TH APRIL—Second Reading of the National Insurance and Supplementary Benefits Bill.
At seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration.
Motions on the Rating of Industry (Scotland) Order, the Furnished Lettings (Rateable Value Limits) Order, the African Development Fund (Immunities and Privileges) Order, and the motion relating to the Local Government Super-

annuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations.
TUESDAY 1ST MAY—Progress on the remaining stages of the Water Bill.
WEDNESDAY 2ND MAY—Completion of the remaining stages of the Water Bill, which it is hoped to finish by seven o'clock.
Afterwards, motion on the Counter-Inflation (Price and Pay Code) Order and motions relating to Counter-Inflation Orders on Remuneration of Teachers, the Notification of Increases in Prices and Charges and on the Modification of Agricultural Wages Acts.
THURSDAY 3RD MAY—Debate on a motion to take note of the Second Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, Session 1971–72, on the Independent Broadcasting Authority, and on the relevant Government Observations.
Motion on the Regulation of Prices (Tranquillising Drugs) Order.
FRIDAY 4TH MAY—Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt have seen the extremely serious trade figures today, which I believe are the worst ever. When are we to have a statement from the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or both, on what the Government intend to do about the extremely serious and deteriorating state of the economy, and when are we to have time for a debate on it?

Mr. Prior: I shall convey the right hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend, but I should tell him that the Government intend to keep their nerve, to keep the economy expanding and to keep prosperity going.

Mr. Marten: Does my right hon. Friend recall that about a fortnight ago it was proposed to debate the motion on the draft directive concerning driving licences.
[That this House rejects the proposals contained in a draft directive of the Commission of the European Communities (No. C 119/1 dated 16th November 1972 in the Official Journal of the EC) namely, the Raising of the Age for a Driving Licence from 17 years to 18 years and other related matter.]
The reason given for postponing the debate was the absence of the draft documents from the Vote Office. Two or three weeks have elapsed. Surely the documents have been printed. Why cannot we debate the motion? I should be very grateful if we could.

Mr. Prior: I have told my hon. Friend and the House on various occasions that the motion will have to be debated at a convenient time, but there is no particular hurry about it. My hon. Friend will have heard the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries this afternoon. I am sure that a proper opportunity will be found at the right time to debate the motion.

Mr. Fernyhough: When are we to have a statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the outcome of the marathon talks in Brussels which ended at half-past six this morning and the effect they are likely to have on our cost of living?

Mr. Prior: The talks have not ended and therefore there is no outcome at the moment to report, but my right hon. Friend will make a statement to the House when the talks have finished.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Has my right hon. Friend seen the Early Day Motion standing in the name of 100 Members on both sides of the House about raising the exemption limit on prescription charges from the age of 15 to 16 to coincide with the raising of the school-leaving age?
[That this House is deeply concerned that Her Majesty's Government feels unable to grant free National Health Service prescriptions to all children up to sixteen years of age who are attending school; and calls upon the Government to grant this concession as soon as possible.]
Will he ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement to the House after the recess to the effect that he has decided to increase the limit to the age of 16?

Mr. Prior: I do not know about the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, but I shall convey his views to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Heffer: Will the Leader of the House indicate when we are to have a

debate on the Robens Report dealing with the question of safety, particularly as it affects the construction industry, and when we are likely to get the proposed legislation?

Mr. Prior: I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House are keen to have such a debate, but I cannot promise one in the immediate future. I cannot undertake to give a date for the introduction of legislation, but there will have to be legislation and I have already told the House that the Government accept the need for it.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will my right hon. Friend say when the Oaths and Declarations (Repeals) (Northern Ireland) Order will be debated? [HON. MEMBERS: "Tonight."] I already have the answer to that question. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Northern Ireland orders are not taken late at night and bunched together, making it difficult for Northern Ireland Members and, indeed, other hon. Members?

Mr. Prior: I hope that my hon. Friend realises that he, too, causes certain difficulties to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I think that we have done Northern Ireland pretty proud in the last 12 weeks, and I hope that Northern Ireland Members will wish to co-operate with other hon. Members as well as with themselves.

Mr. Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend indicate when the House is likely to debate the fifth directive on managerial and supervisory boards in industry? This matter is being debated in Europe and is regarded as exceedingly important in this country.

Mr. Prior: I cannot promise immediate time. I shall consider the matter and get in touch with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Short: Unless English words have lost their meaning, the Leader of the House talked gibberish when he replied to my earlier question. We have the worst trade figures ever in any one month. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government will keep their nerve and will keep prosperity going. Will he tell us what they will do about these figures— the worst trade figures we have had in any one month in our history?

Mr. Prior: I am not sure of the relevance of the right hon. Gentleman's question to business. That might be a suitable matter to discuss on the Adjournment Motion which we are to take next. I shall be very happy in the next debate to put the Government's case, which I think is a superb case.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS PENSIONS BILL

[Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 2

SUPERANNUATION SCHEMES AS RESPECTS CERTAIN OVERSEAS SERVICE AND SERVICE WITH THE CENTRAL OFFICE OF THE OVERSEAS AUDIT DEPARTMENT

9.47 p.m.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): I beg to move Amendment No 1, in page 3, line 7, leave out paragraph (e).
In Committee on 13th March I moved a similar amendment to delete Clause 2(2)(e). On that occasion the Committee refused to agree to that amendment because I was not able to state the attitude that the Government were taking to the purpose behind the new subsection. As hon. Members will remember, the subsection had attracted fairly wide support both in this House and in another place. I undertook on that occasion to report the Government's decision on this important matter before this House was asked to part with the Bill.
The Government have now completed their consideration of this complicated and difficult question and they have decided that they should be prepared, on the grounds of hardship, to make the same arrangements for the former members of the South Arabian Security Forces as already exist for civil pensioners of the former South Arabian Services. That means, in other words, that we are prepared to make ex gratia loan advances with effect from 1st April 1973 to bring payments up to the level of pensions due for service given up to 30th November 1967.
The Government have taken this step to try to alleviate the hardship suffered by individual pensioners. It in no way changes the Government's view that responsibility for these pensions rests properly with the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of the Yemen.
I expect the annual cost to be between £100,000 and £200,000, and a Supplementary Estimate will be presented later.
In general these arrangements will apply to all entitled officers. But I must make it clear that the Government reserve the right to deny a loan advance in any case where we are satisfied that there was disloyalty to the former British administration.
I am confident that the announcement I have made will be gladly received by all those who have given support to the amendment which was made in another place. For reasons that I have given to the House on earlier occasions, the Government have the power, without the inclusion of this subsection, to make loan advances to these people. Therefore, the subsection is, and in my opinion always has been, unnecessary. If it were kept in the Bill it would breach the principle that the legal responsibility for these pensions rests with the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of the Yemen, not with Her Majesty's Government.
Therefore, in view of the Government's willingness to make these loan advances, I ask the House to agree to the amendment and to delete the subsection.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: In moving the amendment the Minister has made a statement which I believe will commend itself to the House generally. The object of the words which he now seeks to delete was to right an obvious and long-standing injustice to a number of officers who served this country and, indeed, Southern Arabia with loyalty and devotion before the transfer of power.
Without retaining the subsection the Minister accepts the argument on merit and undertakes to extend to these officers "similar arrangements" as exist for civil pensioners, as we call them. The amendment which was carried in the other place and confirmed in Committee upstairs was declaratory, and no one would pretend that its drafting was perfect. Granted that there is no likelihood of a change of policy concerning civilian pensioners, I agree that the insertion of these words might have created fresh anomalies if they had been retained in the Bill.
It is enough that the Minister has deferred generously and graciously to the

remarkable consensus of view on both sides of the House on Second Reading of the Bill and throughout its different stages in both Houses and has undertaken that the pre-independence military personnel will be treated in the same way as civilian pensioners.
I shall not detain the House longer than to welcome the Minister's statement. In the absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), who regrets that he cannot be here this evening, especially to hear the statement which has just been made, I should like to quote what he said in the closing stages of the discussion in Committee so that the House may hear from this Front Bench that the Minister has met precisely what my hon. and learned Friend suggested:
If the right hon. Gentleman and the Government would say that they accept the merits, as far as I am concerned, the right hon. Gentleman can have his amendment; he can delete Clause 2(2)(e); he can do it by means of ex gratia loans; I do not mind how he does it. The right hon. Gentleman is an honourable man. If he says that he accepts the merits, and will see that these people are paid, I am happy to leave the matter in his capable hands."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March 1973, Standing Committee F; c. 23–4.]
It is clear, therefore, that the Minister has met in detail the spirit and intention of what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court and, indeed, the consensus of both Houses on this matter. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. It makes the Bill even better than it was when first presented.

Mr. Richard Luce: As one of the many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been pressing the Government to honour what was clearly an obligation to indigenous former officers serving the British Government and the Aden Government before independence, I am delighted to be able to support what was said by my right hon. Friend, on the understanding that he will fulfil the obligation and, by means of ex gratia loans, pay pensions to those retired officers who were in the various forces in Aden before 1967. Everyone, not only hon. Members but serving British officers who knew and worked with these people in Aden, and in particular the officers who have been advocating this


step, will be grateful to my right hon. Friend and to the Government for what they have done.
This is undoubtedly one of the many legacies of our Empire. I understand that there are about 300 of these ex-officers, the vast majority of whom have served the British people with the greatest loyalty. There was never a shadow of doubt in my mind that we should have fulfilled this obligation. There was only one honourable course of action to take and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has announced that we are to take it. I hope very much that our friends in the Arab world—and we have many friends there— will recognise that we have decided to do and will recognise, too, that ours is a country which honours is obligations.
I have two brief points to put to my right hon. Friend. I accept that he may not be able to answer them tonight but perhaps he will consider them. The first is about the timing of the payment of these ex gratia loans. Perhaps I did not hear my right hon. Friend when he was dealing with this, but it is the case that when, in 1970 we undertook to fulfil the obligation to the indigenous civil servants we paid them as from 1st April of that year. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will think around the possibility of making these loans retrospective and paying them as from that date.
The second matter is that of the treatment of those—if it is possible to detect them—who were disloyal to the Aden Government at the time and, indeed, to the British Government. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell) was right in an earlier debate to draw attention to the fact that there had been a mutiny and that a number of officers had been disloyal, but I think he was wrong to say that because a small minority had been disloyal we should penalise the vast majority who had remained loyal to the British Government. I am sure that on reflection my hon. and gallant Friend will reconsider that, but it is important to meet his challenge and not pay pensions to those who were responsible for or played a part in killing British soldiers during that mutiny.
I hope that, however difficult it may be, my right hon. Friend will find a means of vetting and picking out those who were disloyal. There were a number of forces in Aden which were not in any way involved in the mutiny. I suppose that in respect of the Hadhrami Beduin Legion the pension can be paid automatically, but I suggest that where forces such as the Armed Police were involved we should give careful consideration to inviting them to put in an application for pensions, stating where they were at the time of the mutiny, what they were doing and where they were serving. On that basis it might be possible to sift out those who were disloyal.

My right hon. Friend might consider setting up—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Overseas Pensions Bill [Lords] and the Motion relating to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Fox.]

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS PENSIONS BILL

[Lords]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Luce: Perhaps my right hon. Friend might, if it were possible, set up some kind of vetting committee, with serving on it, for example, the former Director of Establishments at the time of the mutiny, the former Advocate-General, perhaps the former head of the Aden forces, a representative of the GOC at the time, and perhaps one or two Arabs who were serving as officers and who could serve as witnesses. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider some such vetting system to meet this very important point which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West has made about the minority of men who were disloyal to the British Government, so that we can give due justice to the vast majority who served the British people so well.
I feel that on this occasion the British Government have shown great generosity of spirit, and along with those of my hon. Friends who have been so strongly advocating some action in this direction, I am delighted to support the amendment.

Mr. James Allason: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on coming to a satisfactory solution of the problem, and I am glad that the British Government are gradually taking over responsibilities that properly fall on the Governments of the South Yemen and Zanzibar, both of which have gone back on their own proper obligations. Here I quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Mr. Luce) who spoke of out fulfilling our obligations. In this case we are fulfilling the obligations of the South Yemen Government.
I had the privilege of seeing some of the soldiers in action in Aden alongside our own forces so I know what excellent service they gave—or some of them, at any rate. But there are other people in either South Yemen or Zanzibar who should be receiving a pension from their Government but are not getting it. I know that my right hon. Friend is pressing hard to help all those categories who should have been helped by their own Governments.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and assurances. I am one of only a very few hon. Members present this evening, perhaps the only one, who served on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. On that occasion I found it impossible to support my right hon. Friend because I believed that the British Government were continuing an injustice and I wanted to see that injustice put right. The assurances which my right hon. Friend has just given fully meet the reservations I held on that former occasion, and I very much welcome the statement which rights a wrong and honours commitments we have to those many people who served Great Britain faithfully in South Arabia.

Mr. Wood: With leave of the House, may I reply very briefly?
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts)

and to my hon. Friends for what they said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Luce) raised two questions. The first was the timing of the payments. He pleaded for retrospection. I must tell him clearly that I am afraid that I can give him no encouragement. I said that the date which the Government have decided was 1st April 1973, and we must remain quite firm about this, particularly because these payments, as I made clear earlier, are on hardship grounds and are therefore designed to meet the needs of the present and, as far as is necessary, of the future.
On the question of loyalty, my hon. Friend will no doubt be studying very carefully my words on this matter. I will certainly study his words, but I would not want to commit myself to any particular means of satisfying myself about loyalty or disloyalty. I would merely like to leave it that I will try to reach my own judgment in as effective a way as I possibly can. I hope that my hon. Friend will therefore study that part of what I have said, while I will study what he has said, without being able to commit myself to any means of reaching this kind of decision.

Amendment agreed to.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE

Resolved,
That the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 501), a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Mills.]

Resolved,
That the Cereals (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 502), a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Mills.]

Resolved,
That the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 591), a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th March, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Mills.]

Orders of the Day — HORTICULTURE

Resolved,
That the Horticulture (Increase in Aggregate Amount of Grants) Order 1973. a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Mills.]

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL

Ordered,
That any new Clause relating to punishment for murder of which notice may be given not later than 2nd May in respect of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill be committed

to a Committee of the whole House; and that, when the Committee of the whole House have reported with respect to any such new Clause and the Standing Committee on the Bill have reported the Bill, the Bill be proceeded with as if it had been reported as a whole from the Standing Committee.—[Mr. Peter Mills.]

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (OATHS AND DECLARATIONS)

Resolved,
That the Oaths and Declarations (Repeals) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 603), a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th April, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Mills.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND (GOVERNMENT OFFICES)

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Frank McElhone: I thank Mr. Speaker sincerely for this opportunity to debate the dispersal of Civil Service jobs from London to Glasgow and the West of Scotland.
This subject is vitally important to my area when one considers that in Glasgow alone male unemployment is as high as 10T per cent., which must be wholly unacceptable to any Government with a social conscience. I must also tell the House—alas, not for the first time—that the West of Scotland is more than fed up with always being regarded as the industrial dormitory of the South, enjoying industrial expansion last, yet suffering industrial contraction always first.
The greatest investment that any nation can make must be in the education of its young people, yet this precious asset is being destroyed. In the city of Glasgow alone we have more than 2,000 school leavers wholly unemployed. Within the figure of 10·1 per cent. male unemployed in the city, there are, regretfully, many university graduates. Therefore, is it any wonder that so many of our brightest young people have to leave home, many to go to London, to attain that basic human dignity, the right to work?
It is also important that I should state that in our claim for a fair share of these jobs our arguments are not just economic. Before I come to that matter, however, it is only fair to pay tribute to the many people in the West of Scotland who have played a part in this campaign to get the jobs, not least the Lord Provost of the city of Glasgow, Mr. William Gray, who has led this campaign with splendid imagination and energy. This is not just a city of Glasgow exercise. The exercise concerns the whole of the West of Scotland. Indeed, the support of the four counties, the new

towns and everyone concerned within industry, commerce and the trade unions should ensure that we get our rightful share of any dispersal recommended by the Hardman Committee's Report.
Coming to the other arguments, it is worth recording that the Civil Service Commission's Report published on 10th April states that in spite of every effort made by the Civil Service 400 jobs in the higher executive grade are still unfilled in the London area.
The cost of office accommodation in London is prohibitively high. When one compares rents in London of, for instance, from £6 to £12 per sq. ft. with rents in the West of Scotland as low as £1 per sq. ft. one can see the decided commercial attraction for coming to that part of the world.
On the subject of building costs, the new Post Office Savings Bank in Cowglen, custom-built for a staff of 6,000, cost about £7 million and provided 700,000 sq. ft. of accommodation. That should be compared with the recent acquisition at Whittington House in London occupied by the Home Office. Here, we have a building at a cost of £9·6 million, yet it provides only 71,000 sq. ft. as against the 700,000 sq. ft. in Cowglen.
Those figures prove conclusively that Glasgow can provide 10 times the amount of accommodation at two-thirds of the cost of such accommodation in London. This must be a compelling argument, especially as I can record tonight that in the city centre of Glasgow we have about 500,000 sq. ft. of new accommodation lying empty and ready for letting, and another 500,000 to 600,000 sq. ft. under construction or in the pipeline.
A very important aspect for any family involved in dispersal is the quality of life. One can state, with a certain guarantee, that people can purchase a house in the West of Scotland for half the price, or less, of a house in London of comparable size.
Regarding education, families which have moved to Cowglen and other Civil Service establishments will testify that the educational facilities are superior to those in the South. Apart from the many colleges of further education, there are two universities in the city of Glasgow


and a total of five universities within a radius of 45 miles of the city.
As for recreational facilities, our Scottish National Orchestra is equal to the best in Europe, and our Scottish opera and ballet companies bear similar comparison. The facilities for golf, fishing, sailing and other outdoor participation sports are worth recording. The countryside is about half-an-hour's journey by car from the city centre.
The problem of dispersal is being tackled in many countries. In West Germany, the Anti-trust Corporation is in Berlin, the Statistical Office is in Wiesbaden and the Employment Agency is near Nuremburg.
It is worth recalling that in France decentralisation has taken place to the extent that the computer operations for the Statistical Office are being carried on at Bordeaux and part of the Foreign Ministry has been dispersed to Brittany. Holland, Eire, Sweden and nearly every other European country are going through or have gone through an exercise in dispersal. Much could be learned by the Government if they made a study of what is happening in those countries.
It is worth recalling some facts from the excellent Tavistock's Institute report on dispersal. Of the male higher executive officers and higher grades in group one departments, 89 per cent. in general terms would accept dispersal. This is a high figure, and it points to a much wider acceptance of the principle of dispersal than many would imagine. The greater the distance from London the dispersal location is, the more willing are people to elect to go there.
The report analyses four dispersals which have taken place in recent years— the Savings Certificate office to Durham; the National Savings Bank to Glasgow; the Stationery Office to Norwich; and the Civil Service Commission to Basingstoke. It is important to recall that in all these dispersals not one compulsory transfer was made of a Civil Service officer. It is vitaly important to the Government that any dispersal should be carried out on a voluntary basis as far as possible. This belies the fears of many Londoners that dispersal will be compulsory.
This leads me to my conviction that, given the right inducement, many civil

servants would volunteer to come to the West of Scotland. I have no doubt that many expatriates would welcome the chance to return.
One cannot fail to appreciate the difficulties of this Government, or indeed of any Government, in attempting an exercise of this nature. Nor can one fail to appreciate the fears and apprehensions of many families which might be dispersed from London.
Nevertheless, for the Government not to act in a bold and decisive manner, especially in an area of such high unemployment as Glasgow, not only would be an act of political folly but would provide those apostles of separatism in Scotland, of whom we still have a number, with an even greater harvest of discontent than they at present enjoy through the failure of many of the Government's policies.
It is perhaps important to quote from a recent statement made by the Prime Minister, who is, after all, also chief Minister for the Civil Service:
We refuse to condemn large parts of the country to slow decline and decay—to dereliction and to persistent unemployment in pursuit of old-fangled 19th century doctrines of laisse faire. We shall act to bring new life to these areas suffering from high unemployment or depopulation.
That is an exact description of the problem facing Glasgow and the West of Scotland.
If the Government lack the political will to honour the pledge made by the Prime Minister or to make the necessary decisions, the long-term effects will be morally damaging, disastrous and serious for the people of Scotland. They will be even more disastrous and serious for the country as a whole.
The Minister will know that I have produced a plan which I think is worthy of consideration. I have given him a copy. I will not delay the House at this late hour by going into my plan in great detail. I will state a number of points briefly for the record and ask the Minister to give them serious consideration. Perhaps some time after the Easter Recess I shall have the opportunity of further discussions on the practicality on some of them.
We have been assured that housing will be provided not only in the cities but in the counties, and especially in the


new towns. The Lord Provost has told me that he is prepared to support a plan for 100 per cent. loans for the executive officers required in Scotland if they need them. Civil Service representatives will be invited to the West of Scotland when we identify which Departments might be dispersed. It is important that those who might come, and certainly their families, should see what we have to offer.
We also intend to get together a team to come to London for at least a week to provide an exhibition and film shows. I hope that the Minister will assist us so that we may bring at least five or six civil servants who have settled in Scotland. They are the best testimony—far better than a thousand leaflets or a hundred speeches. Many people from the metropolis have settled down very well in Scotland and will never return. If some of them can speak to their counterparts in London, that will be the best advertisement we can have in a campaign to induce jobs to come to my part of the world.
I also intend to approach the media, especially television, to make sure that the families are aware of what we have to offer.
I have several somewhat novel points which I should like the Minister to consider seriously. First, I should like the Government to consider a weighting allowance on the salaries of civil servants who come to Glasgow or West Central Scotland—a London allowance in reverse. I can see no case against that. I have been told by senior civil servants that they are prepared to move voluntarily if the Government give certain inducements. If the Government will not give such London allowance in reverse, they could give an ex gratia or severance payment, much akin to the payment made in the dockers' redundancy scheme. If we are to bring people to the regions from London, inducements will have to be given, and in some cases they will have to be financial.
Another important point for consideration by the Government is in-service retraining for those who might volunteer for the regions but do not come from the Departments concerned. There would be no great difficulty, especially with administrative jobs.
I am making my speech brief because the Minister wants sufficient time to reply to the case, which I believe to be unanswerable, for a substantial number of jobs that might be dispersed from London going to Glasgow and the West of Scotland because of the high rate of unemployment that still exists there.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Edward Taylor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) on raising this important subject and on the splendid way in which he has presented the case for Glasgow.
So that all Ministers and hon. Members may examine all the facts, will my hon. Friend the Minister consider publishing the numbers of candidates who are successful in Civil Service examinations, the numbers who opt for jobs in particular areas, and the numbers who are successfully placed? I ask because a number of us in Glasgow come across Glasgow and West Scotland youngsters, graduates and others, who have been successful in Civil Service examinations but have been unable to find a Civil Service job in the locality and have been offered jobs elsewhere.
I hope that my hon. Friend will consider publishing such figures to give us a picture of the availability of suitable personnel for Civil Service jobs.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: I should like briefly to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) said, and to congratulate him on the facts and figures he gave.
My hon. Friend spoke tonight for West Central Scotland, but he was also speaking for many other parts of the country which want Civil Service offices situated locally rather than in London. There are many indications of stronger pressures yet to come. If their object is to be achieved, a strong lead from the Government will be required, and that is what we look for.
I would refer briefly to two problems which are bound to arise if such a policy is advocated. One is a genuine anxiety by the staff. I inherited as Postmaster-General the decision to move the Post Office Savings Bank to Cowglen. The staff had not been consulted. I remember


one big meeting which I organised in the Albert Hall, at which the Glasgow authorities put on a film. There was a great deal of anxiety at that time, but in fairness, if the staff are fully consulted there will be no problems provided that there is full discussion with the responsible trade union officials, and provided that people are treated sensitively.
The other problem is opposition from senior civil servants who will argue that they must be close to the Minister and that, therefore, all the offices must be located in London. I believe that this argument should be looked at much more critically, because if large bodies of civil servants are to be retained in London simply so that those in charge of them can pop in and out of the Minister's office the operation will never be carried through sensibly. Therefore, I hope that tonight we shall have some indication from the Minister of the Government's thinking. The Opposition will be watching to see how active a policy the Government intend to pursue.

10.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I add my congratulations to those offered by other hon. Members to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) for raising this important subject this evening. Not only is it important. We had a short, interesting debate which is something in the nature of being an historic one in that this is the first occasion on which I have been able to find any record of a general debate on the dispersal of Civil Service jobs. There have been many questions but no debate, so a niche is somewhere being kept warm for the hon. Member for Gorbals.
The hon. Member was kind enough to give me his seven proposals before I entered the Chamber, and I assure him that I shall study them carefully. If he would like to see me after the recess I shall be only too pleased to discuss them with him in detail. He has made a powerful case for the dispersal of more office jobs, especially clerical work, to West Central Scotland. I appreciate his concern, and I appreciate also the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor). I can assure them both that the Government

are also equally concerned. We are very well aware of the seriousness of the lack of employment opportunities, particularly for young people, in West Central Scotland and in many other areas. We appreciate the tensions and frustrations over the lack of jobs which well qualified people leaving school experience. The Secretary of State, as the House will know, is constantly seeking solutions to these problems. The House will also be aware that in October 1970 we commissioned the Hardman Review on the Dispersal of the Civil Service.
Areas like Glasgow should not regard dispersal of Government work as a panacea, because the supply of Government jobs is limited. Hardman has been looking at headquarters offices. The number of civil servants employed in headquarters offices would be about 150,000 for the whole of the country, of which 57,000 are already outside London and the South-East. The great bulk of civil servants do not work in London. Only three out of 10 of the people in the Civil Service work there. Of these three, one works in local offices of the Department of Employment or the Department of Health and Social Security, and two are employed on headquarters work.
So, Hardman has been reviewing a group which amounts now to some 86,000 posts. We are determined to disperse a sensible proportion but it would be wrong to suggest that it could be a major proportion. The scope for Civil Service dispersal alone overcoming employment problems in the regions, is, therefore, restricted. As regards the general campaign for West Central Scotland, I am glad to see that the authorities there are not pinning all their hopes on one employer. This must be the right course. Efforts must be made by Government, development councils and local authorities to attract new jobs from a wide range of sources in both the private and the public sector.
West Central Scotland is well placed. It is a special development area, manpower resources are there, and there are financial incentives. The very attractive countryside is there, and a well-developed social infrastructure exists. The idea can exploit these advantages, and I am glad to have this opportunity to congratulate the local authorities on the presentation they made on 28th March in London on commercial and industrial relocation, and


the Scottish new towns on their initiative in opening a promotion office in Regent Street just a few hundred yards from my constituency.
It is fair to present the Government record and the record of previous Governments on dispersal. A previous Conservative Government set up a review under Sir Gilbert Flemming in 1963, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, then a junior Minister, was instrumental in getting that review off the ground. The recommendations of the review have resulted in 23,000 civil servants already being dispersed from London. Another 8,000 are due to go, and some 20,000 jobs have been established in new organisations of government outside London or are waiting to be established. Three quarters of the jobs dispersed since 1963 have been outside the "golden triangle" of the South-East and the South-West. That is an impressive achievement by any standard, and Scotland has not been forgotten in this dispersal. There are some 42,000 civil servants in Scotland, 8·6 per cent. of the total non-industrial Civil Service. They are in roughly the same proportion to the total Civil Service as the population of Scotland is to the population of Great Britain as a whole.
Apart from London, there are four cities in the United Kingdom with more than 10,000 civil servants, and two of them are Glasgow and Edinburgh. Scotland's share of dispersed work has been substantial. Already 4,700 jobs have been provided, and 3,500 more are planned. A total of 1,800 have been created in new organisations, and 1,000 will be created over the next few years, bringing Scotland's share since 1963 to some 11,000— one fifth of the total. In spite of this fine record, the Government believe that more can be done, as does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The hon. Member for Gorbals referred to a speech that my right hon. Friend made, and I can assure the hon. Member that we intend to disperse more.
Perhaps I may answer the point about the nature of the work. By and large, the work that has been dispersed so far is essentially of a non-policy kind—for example, the National Savings Bank Savings Certificate Division to Durham, and the Teachers Salaries, Qualifications

and Pensions Branch to Darlington. Although these branches have daily contact with the public they do not have much contact with the rest of Whitehall. They are not policy units. What Hardman has been looking at now is the policy "heartland" of Government. It follows from that that if this is to be dispersed some of the civil servants who work in that heartland will have to go as well. What Hardman has been doing in his study has been balancing on the one side the efficiency and economy of Government against the gain to the regions on the other. That is indeed a crucial balance for that sort of exercise. The House will also know that we have received the Hardman Report as a basis for discussion. It raises complex issues, and these must be considered carefully over the next few months. It will involve consultation with the national and departmental staff sides. We consider that to be essential. Our aim is to announce decisions as soon as possible after this full consultation.
I would also emphasise the point raised by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) about the importance of consultations with the staff side. Some people say that civil servants do not want to go and that there is a sort of conspiracy amongst them not to leave London. I have not found this, but one must accept that civil servants faced with dispersal have a natural concern for the work they are doing. They have a pride in their work and the efficiency of it, and they are concerned for fair treatment for themselves and also about the effect on their wives and families. All these factors have to be taken into account.
Previous dispersal exercises have been handled extremely well, and we are proud of our record. Many of those who have gone certainly do not want to come back after they have settled in and done their work. When I visited Cowglen I asked many Londoners whether they would like to return to the South, to "the Smoke". I did not have one taker.
I assure the House that we are well aware of the claims of Scotland in general and of West Central Scotland in particular. Representations have been received by my right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State for Scotland and myself far in excess of representations from other areas. In recent months I have talked to Glasgow Members in the House; I have travelled to Glasgow to meet the Lord Provost; I have visited Cowglen. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland recently received a deputation.
But it would be disingenuous of me to sound too optimistic about the degree to which West Central Scotland's claims can be met. Glasgow alone repeatedly bids for 20,000 posts. I cannot anticipate the review's outcome, but I take this opportunity to draw attention to one factor which is something of an inhibition. It is the policy heartland of the work we are looking at. We need to avoid reducing the effectiveness of that work. I am not saying that the work will be done less well outside London. In all cases we expect it to be done as well and in some cases better. I take my hon. Friend's point about the many qualified school leavers who cannot find jobs. I shall consider whether I can give him the information for which he asks.
The effectiveness of the various departmental machines depends on a series of formal and informal face-to-face contacts.

This is a complicated pattern of communications in the policy area of Whitehall. It has developed in London because all the other interests historically have been in London—trade union associations, employer associations, cultural associations, business associations. I am not saying that those are the best in the country but they are the most concentrated. When we start disturbing this pattern of communication, this web, we must make sure that we do not upset and destroy the effectiveness of the machine. Dispersal imposes its price as well as bringing its dividend.
I recognise the force of many of the points raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals. I fully appreciate the importance of the problems facing the West Central Scotland area. But they must be seen against the general background which I have described regarding the limitations and constraints on dispersal and the many competing claims for, comparatively speaking, a small number of jobs. But I assure him and my hon. Friend that the claims of Scotland will be considered by the Government as thoroughly as they have presented them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.